If you're in a state that is nowhere near a swing state, and you vote for down ballot senate races and such, I think you can get a pass on a protest vote at the top of the ticket with your personal vote. If you live in a swing state you have to be an adult and vote for someone with a realistic chance....

In my particular case, Michigan has been blue since the 80s (when even California voted Republican). All accounts had it has going Blue again in this election. If I thought it was going to be anything close, I would have voted differently.

I don't see the point in placing blame unless it is in a constructive fashion. Blaming a handful of voters, none of whom voted for Trump, isn't constructive. It is a distraction which takes away from solving any real issues.

More to the point, its a divide strategy among the democrat base. Choosing to divide rather than unite is at the heart of the problem.

You won't actually change what the parties stand for unless you convince close to 50% of the public to agree with you on those issues.

Depends on what you mean by "stand for." You can at least get a major party to adopt one or more part of the third party's platform if that major party comes to the realization that it can get a plurality of the vote if only it can siphon off a few of those third party supporters.

You had just better be sure, as a third party voter, that those one or two major issues are worth risking a least preferred (vice less preferred) party victory if you're going to vote third party.

You won't actually change what the parties stand for unless you convince close to 50% of the public to agree with you on those issues. And if you have that much support, you can easily reinvent an existing party to represent those new ideals.

I don't know about "easily". Sometimes it takes fifty or a hundred years or longer, and lives either spent bashing heads against what looks like unbreakable walls or spent because of heads being literally bashed in -- though I'll admit that most of that may be spent building the public support. But the parties certainly do change positions. Not only have they switched relative positions with each other, but both of them now hold, at least officially, positions that neither of them would have touched a hundred years ago, or in some cases even fifty.

Admittedly they can change them in both directions. Republicans weren't always against allowing any abortions, or against all gun control.

-- I think actually a lot of the problem we're having is that not enough people turn out to vote in the primaries; therefore the people who get nominated often are those who only appeal to a fairly small percentage of the party. The rest of the population then complains that in the main election there's nobody worth voting for to choose from.

In my particular case, Michigan has been blue since the 80s (when even California voted Republican). All accounts had it has going Blue again in this election. If I thought it was going to be anything close, I would have voted differently.

The polls often had it near the margin of error this time around. It was projected to be likely Democratic, but it wasn't a lock like some other states. Maybe in past years, but this year we knew it wasn't 100% safe. Trumps populism was known to be making headway into the Northeast Rust Belt states that used to be Democratic. Pundits understimated exactly how much headway he would make, but it was clear that it wasn't a replay of 2012.

If you're going to play brinkmanship with protest votes you should also make sure you have data about the current election rather than the previous one.

As the election results came rolling in on Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow called out Americans who voted for candidates they knew had no chance of winning the presidency.

“Well, it is what it is. People go into this eyes wide-open,” Maddow said during MSNBC’s Election Night coverage. “If you vote for somebody who can’t win for president, it means that you don’t care who wins for president.”

I don't understand though how anything would have changed. CLinton got the popular vote (well last I heard, she came very close if not) but the electoral college is what sent Trump in over the top. Would the electoral college results have been any different if the popular vote had been higher than it was?

Look at the middle two columns with regard to the margin of victory vs. the percentage taken by independent candidates. Pennsylvania and Florida swinging the other way by a few points would have changed the electoral balance in the Democrats' favor.

If you give me two crappy choices and I refuse to take one, you can blame me, or you can blame the system that came up with two crappy choices. Better yet, blame the 60 million people who voted for Trump.

Thank you so much.

Always felt that picking on Third Party Voters reeked of bullying. Yes, rather than consider the idea that maybe the Democratic Candidate isn't the greatest person ever, we'll blame a handful of voters for weighing out the facts and going with the candidate they feel best supports their views. That's just so irresponsible. How dare they not be sufficiently satisfied with platitudes.

And of course, Ralph Nader is going to get brought up, as though the system wasn't completely rigged and a corrupt as NFBSK Supreme Court had nothing to do with Al Gore losing. But it's probably easier to pick on third-party voters whose collective income probably doesn't come anywhere close to matching one of the Koch brothers, let alone the many other special interests at work.

Plus, yeah, how come no one's blaming the 60 million who voted for Trump in the first place? I don't think he would have won if nobody casted a vote for him.

I don't support voting for third party candidates for president. Even if they're truly better on the issues (and this year, they really weren't). Even if it'll get them to 5% and that magic funding that never seems to put a dent in our two-party system. Even if you think your state is solidly for the candidate of your choice. I don't know what just happened in Wisconsin, but perhaps all those polls showing Clinton was practically guaranteed the state lured people there into a false sense of security. Even in reliably blue California, I wasn't going to risk it. Clinton didn't just inherit the state; people actually had to vote for her. That's how it works. If enough people decide to cast pointless protest third party votes, a candidate can lose a state no one ever thought they'd lose. In Dawnstorm's case, I think what she did is roughly analogous to firing your gun in the air along with a bunch of other people. Maybe your bullet didn't hit anyone, but it could have. Maybe someone else's bullet did. It wasn't worth it.

Always felt that picking on Third Party Voters reeked of bullying. Yes, rather than consider the idea that maybe the Democratic Candidate isn't the greatest person ever, we'll blame a handful of voters for weighing out the facts and going with the candidate they feel best supports their views. That's just so irresponsible. How dare they not be sufficiently satisfied with platitudes.

If general you is going to be happy with the results of the election no matter who wins then by all means weigh all those facts and cast your ballot. In the case of this specific election though if general you didn't vote for Clinton I really hope you aren't now going on anywhere about how awful it is that Trump won. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson "you chose fruit, you live with it."

What if they genuinely didn't like Clinton either? Are you saying that every American is limited to complaining about just one candidate? That they must be pleased if the other wins, no matter what? In the immortal words of Trey Parker "you've been given the right to choose between a d***** and a turd."

You seem to be saying it's okay for people to not care or "be happy" one way or the other, but not to be upset one way or the other. I'm not sure you've thought this through...

Bottom line is if you can live with the results of the election, in this case if you genuinely believe that a Clinton win would be just as bad as a Trump win then knock yourself out, vote in Harry Potter if it makes you feel better about things. I have a strong suspicion though that for those leaning middle and left there is no way they really ever felt that Clinton was just as bad as Trump.

What if they genuinely didn't like Clinton either? Are you saying that every American is limited to complaining about just one candidate? That they must be pleased if the other wins, no matter what? In the immortal words of Trey Parker "you've been given the right to choose between a d***** and a turd."

And sometimes those are your choices in life. Neither is appealing but it's what you're stuck with.

Bottom line is if you can live with the results of the election, in this case if you genuinely believe that a Clinton win would be just as bad as a Trump win then knock yourself out, vote in Harry Potter if it makes you feel better about things. I have a strong suspicion though that for those leaning middle and left there is no way they really ever felt that Clinton was just as bad as Trump.

And I have a strong suspicion that less than 100% of 3rd party voters would have otherwise voted for Clinton. I've found libertarians, for instance, to be far more right wing at heart than left. Trump was voted into office by Trump voters and no one else.

I do blame you and people like you for Trump's victory. Is it fair? Maybe not but every vote that did not go to Clinton was a vote for Trump IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Credence

As far as I'm concerned, you absolutely have some responsibility for this. Did you vote for him? No. Did your vote swing the election in any way? No. But you voted for a third party candidate, knowing full well that they had no possibility of winning, and knowing who was actually running.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoKu

Since you're asking, yup, I do feel you're partly to blame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanz

I feel third party voters are partially responsible. I don't mean Dawn individually, but the mass of voters who did go third. I think it was abad idea. I also blame the non-voters, who thought "both are just as bad" and didn't vote at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lainie

Of course one vote didn't make the difference. But yes, every person who chose to vote for a third party instead of Hillary did, in fact, contribute to Trump's victory. That's a simple mathematical fact.

I'm sorry that's uncomfortable for you. I wish you no ill will. But I'm not going to pretend it isn't true.

ETA: Don't call him out. It wouldn't change his mind, and could only cause trouble. (Plus, he's right.)

FETA: ". . .just as if Clinton would have won." For you, probably. For me, probably. Not for everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iskinner

If You (General You) is unhappy that Trump is president elect, but YOU (General You) did not vote for Clinton. Either You (General you) voted third party or --worse-- did not voted, for the only candidate that had a reasonable chance to defeat him in this election Than yes you share a portion of the blame for not making that choice.

And I blame people like all of you, and your Republican counterparts who claimed that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Clinton.

If all the people who voted for Clinton only so Trump wouldn't win, and all the people who voted for Trump only so Clinton wouldn't win, had instead voted third party, then we could have a viable third party candidate.

The idea that third party candidates can't win is a self-fulfilling prophecy....if you don't vote for them because you believe they can't win, then of course they can't win.

Lotta couldas and wouldas there, Pinqy. Ooh, ooh, I got one: I didn't win the state lottery because I didn't buy a ticket. Damn, if only I'd bought like 75% of the lottery tickets...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinqy

And I blame people like all of you, and your Republican counterparts who claimed that a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Clinton.

If all the people who voted for Clinton only so Trump wouldn't win, and all the people who voted for Trump only so Clinton wouldn't win, had instead voted third party, then we could have a viable third party candidate.

The idea that third party candidates can't win is a self-fulfilling prophecy....if you don't vote for them because you believe they can't win, then of course they can't win.

If general you is going to be happy with the results of the election no matter who wins then by all means weigh all those facts and cast your ballot. In the case of this specific election though if general you didn't vote for Clinton I really hope you aren't now going on anywhere about how awful it is that Trump won. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson "you chose fruit, you live with it."

I would have voted for Kasich or Gilmore happily and Bush, Cruz, or Rubio reluctantly over Clinton. For all other Republican candidates I would have voted third party.

At the same time, I would have voted for Lincoln Chaffee or Jim Webb over all Republicans except maybe Kasich or Gilmore (it would have come down to the debates).

So I feel perfectly comfortable complaining about how bad Trump is (though as a government employee I only have 2 months left to do that). And would also feel comfortable complaining about how bad Clinton is if she had won.

I think that Clinton would have been a bit better than Trump, but I don't think she would have been good. The lesser of two evils is still evil and if everyone who didn't explicitly want either had voted third party, we would be better off.

And my county voted overwhelmingly for Clinton, so my McMullin vote had no effect.

If all the people who voted for Clinton only so Trump wouldn't win, and all the people who voted for Trump only so Clinton wouldn't win, had instead voted third party, then we could have a viable third party candidate.

I rather doubt it.

For one thing, while there were certainly people who voted only on the lesser-of-two-evils basis, there were also certainly a whole lot of people who were genuinely voting for either Clinton or Trump.

For another, for some of the lesser-of-two-evils people, none of the third-party candidates running looked any better. We hear less about them; but there was plenty to dislike about them, too. So some of the people who didn't like either Clinton or Trump, but thought one of them was better than the other, would also have liked either Clinton or Trump better than whichever third-party candidates were on their ballot.

For a third, there wasn't only one "third party" candidate running. There were at least two on the ballot, and in some states more than that.

So the multiple "third-party" candidates would have divided among them a percentage of a percentage of the vote. I very much doubt that any of them would have beaten either Clinton or Trump. And I doubt even more that, even if one of them had pulled off a strong third-place finish, that this would have led to a viable third party. As I said upthread, it's been done before, and nevertheless the parties that did it faded into oblivion.